I think there should definitely be a place for discussing vetting constraints. My only uncertainty is whether this should be done in a separate article and, if so, whether talent vs. funding constraints should be split. Conditional on having an article on vetting constraints, it looks to me that we should also have articles on talent constraints and funding constraints. Alternatively, we could have a single article discussing all of these constraints.
I think I agree that we should either have three separate entries or one entry covering all three. I’m not sure which of those I lean towards, but maybe very weakly towards the latter?
Mmh, upon looking at Vaidehi’s list more closely, it now seems to me that we should have a single article: people have proposed various other constraints besides the three mentioned, and I don’t think it would make sense to have separate articles for each of these, or to have an additional article for “other constraints”. So I propose renaming talent vs. funding constraintsconstraints in effective altruism. Thoughts?
Done. (Though I used the name constraints on effective altruism, which seemed more accurate. I don’t have strong views on whether the preposition should be ‘in’ or ‘on’, however, so feel free to change it.)
The article should be substantially revised (it was imported from EA Concepts), I think, but at least its scope is now better defined.
Great. Let’s have three articles then. Feel free to split the existing one, otherwise I’ll do that tomorrow. [I know you like this kind of framing. ;) ]
Vetting constraints dovetails nicely with talent vs. funding constraints. I’m not totally convinced by the scalably using labour entry, though. One possibility would be to just replace it by a vetting constraints entry. Alternatively, it could be retained but renamed/reconceptualised.
Yeah, scalably using labor just doesn’t strike me as a natural topic for a Wiki entry, though I not sure exactly why. Maybe it’s because it looks like the topic was generated by considering an interesting question—”how should the EA community allocate its talent?”—and creating an entry around it, rather than by focusing on an existing field or concept.
I’d be weakly in favor of merging it with vetting constraints.
I’m currently in favour of keeping scalably using labour, though I also made the entry so this shouldn’t be much of an update (it’s not like a “second vote”, just a repeat of the first vote after hearing the new arguments).
One consideration I’d add is that maybe it’s a more natural topic for a tag than a wiki entry? It seems to me like having a tag for posts relevant to a (sufficiently) interesting and recurring question makes sense?
Fwiw, I think that “scalably using labour” doesn’t sound quite like a wiki entry. I find virtually no article titles including the term “using” on Wikipedia.
If one wants to retain the concept, I think that “Large-scale use of labour” or something similar would be better. There are may Wikipedia article titles including the term “use of [noun]”. (Potentially nouns are generally better than verbs in Wikipedia article titles? Not sure.)
Vetting constraints
Maybe this wouldn’t add sufficient value to be worth having, given that we already have scalably using labour and talent vs. funding constraints.
I think there should definitely be a place for discussing vetting constraints. My only uncertainty is whether this should be done in a separate article and, if so, whether talent vs. funding constraints should be split. Conditional on having an article on vetting constraints, it looks to me that we should also have articles on talent constraints and funding constraints. Alternatively, we could have a single article discussing all of these constraints.
I think I agree that we should either have three separate entries or one entry covering all three. I’m not sure which of those I lean towards, but maybe very weakly towards the latter?
Just discovered Vaidehi made a collection of discussions of constraints in EA, which could be helpful for populating whatever entries get created and maybe for deciding on scopes etc.
Mmh, upon looking at Vaidehi’s list more closely, it now seems to me that we should have a single article: people have proposed various other constraints besides the three mentioned, and I don’t think it would make sense to have separate articles for each of these, or to have an additional article for “other constraints”. So I propose renaming talent vs. funding constraints constraints in effective altruism. Thoughts?
I think that that probably makes sense.
Done. (Though I used the name constraints on effective altruism, which seemed more accurate. I don’t have strong views on whether the preposition should be ‘in’ or ‘on’, however, so feel free to change it.)
The article should be substantially revised (it was imported from EA Concepts), I think, but at least its scope is now better defined.
Great. Let’s have three articles then. Feel free to split the existing one, otherwise I’ll do that tomorrow. [I know you like this kind of framing. ;) ]
Vetting constraints dovetails nicely with talent vs. funding constraints. I’m not totally convinced by the scalably using labour entry, though. One possibility would be to just replace it by a vetting constraints entry. Alternatively, it could be retained but renamed/reconceptualised.
Yeah, scalably using labor just doesn’t strike me as a natural topic for a Wiki entry, though I not sure exactly why. Maybe it’s because it looks like the topic was generated by considering an interesting question—”how should the EA community allocate its talent?”—and creating an entry around it, rather than by focusing on an existing field or concept.
I’d be weakly in favor of merging it with vetting constraints.
I’m currently in favour of keeping scalably using labour, though I also made the entry so this shouldn’t be much of an update (it’s not like a “second vote”, just a repeat of the first vote after hearing the new arguments).
One consideration I’d add is that maybe it’s a more natural topic for a tag than a wiki entry? It seems to me like having a tag for posts relevant to a (sufficiently) interesting and recurring question makes sense?
Fwiw, I think that “scalably using labour” doesn’t sound quite like a wiki entry. I find virtually no article titles including the term “using” on Wikipedia.
If one wants to retain the concept, I think that “Large-scale use of labour” or something similar would be better. There are may Wikipedia article titles including the term “use of [noun]”. (Potentially nouns are generally better than verbs in Wikipedia article titles? Not sure.)